Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

This is exactly the sort of thing that would be *useful* news .... relating travel, flight delays, emergency situations.... but no, the god damned twits are worrying about a murder trial (of which we have hundreds in a given day) or "omgbbq, the Princess talked about BABIEEESSSSS!" (barf)

1. We are learning the wrong lessons from the last one. Was the housing bubble really caused by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, “liberals” and so on? That’s what a growing army of people now claim. There’s just one problem. If so, then how come there was a gigantic housing bubble in Spain as well? Did Barney Frank cause that too (and while in the minority in Congress, no less!)? If so, how? And what about the giant housing bubbles in Ireland, the U.K., and Australia? All Barney Frank? And the ones across Eastern Europe, and elsewhere? I’d laugh, but tens of millions are being suckered into this piece of spin, which is being pushed in order to provide cover so the real culprits can get away. And it’s working.

2. No one has been punished. Executives like Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers and Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide , along with many others, cashed out hundreds of millions of dollars before the ship crashed into the rocks. Predatory lenders and crooked mortgage lenders walked away with millions in ill-gotten gains. But they aren’t in jail. They aren’t even under criminal prosecution. They got away, scot free. As a general rule, the worse you behaved from 2000 to 2008, the better you’ve been treated. And so the next crowd will do it again. Guaranteed.

3. The incentives remain crooked. People outside finance — from respected political pundits like George Will to normal people on Main Street — still don’t fully get this. Wall Street rules aren’t like Main Street rules. The guy running a Wall Street bank isn’t in the same “risk/reward” situation as a guy running, say, a dry-cleaning shop. Take all our mental images of traditional American free-market enterprise and put them to one side. This is totally different. For the people on Wall Street, it’s a case of heads they win, tails they get to flip again. Thanks to restricted stock, options, the bonus game, securitization, 2-and-20 fee structures, insider stock sales, “too big to fail,” and limited liability, they are paid to take reckless risks, and they lose little — or nothing — if things go wrong.

4. The referees are corrupt. We’re supposed to have a system of free enterprise under the law. The only problem: The players get to bribe the refs. Imagine if that happened in the NFL. The banks and other industries lavish huge amounts of money on Congress, presidents, and the entire Washington establishment of aides, advisers and hangers-on. They do it through campaign contributions. They do it with $500,000 speaker fees and boardroom sinecures when you retire. And they do it by spending a fortune on lobbyists — so you know that if you play nice when you’re in government, when you retire, you too can get a $500,000-a-year lobbying job. How big are the bribes? The finance industry spent $474 million on lobbying last year alone, says the Center for Responsive Politics.

5. Stocks are skyrocketing again. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index SPX -0.13% has now doubled from the March 2009 lows. Isn’t that good news? Well, yes, up to a point. Admittedly, a lot of it is just from debasement of the dollar (when the greenback goes down, Wall Street goes up, and vice versa). And we forget there were huge rallies on Wall Street during the bear markets of the 1930s and the 1970s, as there were in Japan in the 1990s. But the market boom, targeted especially towards the riskiest and junkiest stocks, raises risks. It leaves investors less room for positive surprises and much more room for disappointment. And stocks are not cheap. The dividend yield on the S&P is just 2%. According to one long-term measure — Tobin’s q, which compares share prices with the replacement cost of company assets — shares are now about 70% above average valuations. Furthermore, we have an ageing population of Baby Boomers who still own a lot of stocks, and who are going to be selling as they near retirement.

6. The derivatives time bomb is bigger than ever — and ticking away. Just before Lehman collapsed, at what we now call the height of the last bubble, Wall Street firms were carrying risky financial derivatives on their books with a value of an astonishing $183 trillion. That was 13 times the size of the U.S. economy. If it sounds insane, it was. Since then we’ve had four years of panic, alleged reform, and a return to financial sobriety. So what’s the figure now? Try $248 trillion. No kidding. Ah, good times.

7. The ancient regime is in the saddle. I have to laugh whenever I hear Republicans ranting that Barack Obama is a “liberal” or a “socialist” or a communist. Are you kidding me? Obama is Bush 44. He’s a bit more like the old man than the younger one. But look at who’s still running the economy: Bernanke. Geithner. Summers. Goldman Sachs. J.P. Morgan Chase. We’ve had the same establishment in charge since at least 1987, when Paul Volcker stood down as Fed chairman. Change? What “change”? (And even the little we had was too much for Wall Street, which bought itself a new, more compliant Congress in 2010)

8. Ben Bernanke doesn’t understand his job. The Fed chairman made an absolutely astonishing admission at his first press conference. He cited the boom in the Russell 2000 Index RUT +0.19% of risky small-cap stocks as one sign “quantitative easing” worked. The Fed has a dual mandate by law: low inflation and low unemployment. Now, apparently, it has a third: boosting Wall Street share prices. This is crazy. If it ends well, I will be surprised.

9. We are levering up like crazy. Looking for a “credit bubble”? We’re in it. Everyone knows about the skyrocketing Federal debt, and the risk that Congress won’t raise the debt ceiling next month. But that’s just part of the story. U.S. corporations borrowed $513 billion in the first quarter. They’re borrowing at twice the rate as they were last fall, when corporate debt was already soaring. Savers, desperate for income, will buy almost any bonds at all. No wonder the yield on high-yield bonds has collapsed. So much for all that talk about “cash on the balance sheets.” U.S. non-financial corporations overall are now deeply in debt, to the tune of $7.3 trillion. That’s a record level, and up 24% in the past five years. And when you throw in household debts, government debts, and the debts of the financial sector, the debt level reaches at least as high as $50 trillion. More leverage means more risk. It’s Econ 101.

10. The real economy remains in the tank. Quantitative Easing II hasn’t done anything noticeable except lower the exchange rate. Unemployment is far, far higher than the official numbers will tell you (for example, even the Labor Department’s fine print admits that one middle-aged man in four lacks a full-time job. Astonishing). Our current-account deficit is running at $120 billion a year (and hasn’t been in surplus since 1990). House prices are falling, not recovering. Real wages are stagnant. Yes, productivity is rising. But that, ironically, also helps keep down jobs.

You know what George Santayana said about people who forget the past. But we’re even dumber than that. We are doomed to repeat the past, not because we have forgotten it, but because we never learned the lessons to begin with.

I laughed at part 8. It certainly took quite long for someone to write this down, but better late than never.

Spoiler for And guess who he looks like?:

Just as I thought, he is selling the Americans, then later the rest of the world, to the Combine. Where is Gordon Freeman when you need him?

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

A lot of people are rather upset w/ the outcome, but this largely falls on the Prosecution for failing to make a convincing case w/ the circumstantial evidence.

In my opinion, Casey Anthony got lucky for only one reason, Calley's body was too decomposed for the coroner to find out what actually killed her. All the circumstantial evidence pointed towards Casey, but the Prosecution didn't have the hard evidence to put her away.

Casey basically lied through her fucking teeth throughout the whole damn deal and she lucked out due to a technicality.

A lot of people are rather upset w/ the outcome, but this largely falls on the Prosecution for failing to make a convincing case w/ the circumstantial evidence.

In my opinion, Casey Anthony got lucky for only one reason, Calley's body was too decomposed for the coroner to find out what actually killed her. All the circumstantial evidence pointed towards Casey, but the Prosecution didn't have the hard evidence to put her away.

Casey basically lied through her fucking teeth throughout the whole damn deal and she lucked out due to a technicality.

Actually, from what I've read, she was never called to give evidence.

I wouldn't blame the jury at all in this, they were doing their job, and they did it right.

I myself am scheduled to be on a jury in about a week's time. Fun times.

To me, all it proves is how unreliable the jury really is, especially when they don't have enough evidence to work with. If the lawyers know how to play the game, they can get the jury right into their hands to win the case. I think the whole process should be revised so that holes like this own can be overcome if not completely bypassed.

To me, all it proves is how unreliable the jury really is, especially when they don't have enough evidence to work with. If the lawyers know how to play the game, they can get the jury right into their hands to win the case. I think the whole process should be revised so that holes like this own can be overcome if not completely bypassed.

Not at all. The jury made the correct judgement. In any criminal case the accused must be guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". Otherwise they are presumed innocent. The fact is, there is not enough evidence to convict her. The jury had the case put before them by both the prosecution and the defense, who receive equal time, and they found they had insufficient evidence to convict.

The jury has done nothing wrong, and the system has worked correctly, because there is no way for us to know whether she did it or not. Certainly she behaved suspiciously, but suspicious behaviour has never before been enough to convict someone, and it certainly shouldn't be now.

There is no one to blame for all this, the unfortunate thing is that the body was too decomposed by the time they found it to find any meaningful evidence. I'd love to say this is a rare thing, but a lot of murder trials (I'd almost say the majority), never result in a conviction because of lack of evidence. It's the only fair way to do it.

Not at all. The jury made the correct judgement. In any criminal case the accused must be guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". Otherwise they are presumed innocent. The fact is, there is not enough evidence to convict her. The jury had the case put before them by both the prosecution and the defense, who receive equal time, and they found they had insufficient evidence to convict.

The jury has done nothing wrong, and the system has worked correctly, because there is no way for us to know whether she did it or not. Certainly she behaved suspiciously, but suspicious behaviour has never before been enough to convict someone, and it certainly shouldn't be now.

There is no one to blame for all this, the unfortunate thing is that the body was too decomposed by the time they found it to find any meaningful evidence. I'd love to say this is a rare thing, but a lot of murder trials (I'd almost say the majority), never result in a conviction because of lack of evidence. It's the only fair way to do it.

Aye. In this case, we can safely say that the prosecution did not have an air-tight case. You have that, and it will sway the jury more easily.

(Yes, I know, perhaps it was overly idealistic to think that to have a leader born from two races that were segregated for hundreds of years in that country/cointinent over there would dispel some of the racial hatred (obviously not all) and make Americans unite across races rather than keep sticking to one) x.x;;

Quote:

Did the election of Barack Obama as US president boost the growth of right-wing and so-called "hate groups"?

A curious thing happens when you walk down the street in Spokane, Washington, first thing in the morning. Complete strangers look you in the eye, and say, with a little smile: "Good morning."
The difficult truth for Spokane, for Washington State, for neighbouring Idaho and for all of the US, is that hate groups - anti-black, anti-Jew, neo-Nazi - are on the rise again.
And nearly everyone, including members of those groups, agrees that the election of Barack Obama has been a catalyst for the increase in support.

And there are ordinary citizens - and their children - who are at the receiving end of hate group activity in Washington and Idaho.

Rachel Dolezal, who teaches art and African-American studies, has been repeatedly harassed since word got out about what she taught.
Her homes - she has moved several times - have been broken into. Nooses have been left for her, and a swastika was left on the door of her workplace.

Although I gotta give kudos to the journalist here, so much for objective reporting, lol

Quote:

Aryan Nations is a wildly anti-Jewish white separatist group.

Mr O'Brien insists he does not condone or encourage any acts of violence. He calls Jews "the children of Satan".
He accuses Barack Obama of being Jewish - he is not - and of not being a US citizen - he is. But he has cause to thank the president.

Although since each state is practically a country, those in more ethnically diverse and accepted places I guess wouldn't really think much of this, cept it all falls under 'America', you're kinda seen as this one entity (esp if 4th July is anything to go by annually), do you think this kinda activity's gonna be making waves as the next election draws closer?

__________________

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. - Van Wilder"If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'." - Carlos Mencia

Since they couldn't stick her w/ murder or manslaughter...is it possible if they further pursue it they can get her w/ accomplice to murder?

The prosecution could not prove it was murder at all. The defense case was that it was an accident pool drowning, and the body was so decomposed that there was no indication either way. The only indisputable thing about the case is that Casey Anthony mislead people searching for her daughter, and that she has a non-standard grief response if anything.

@Mystique
Old news, actually. Obama has received more threats than any other President, and federal law enforcement is keeping a close eye on hate groups. Unlike European nations, the US has few restrictions on hate speech and spreading lies due to the First Amendment, and I do not believe these groups will disappear anytime soon.

The prosecution could not prove it was murder at all. The defense case was that it was an accident pool drowning, and the body was so decomposed that there was no indication either way. The only indisputable thing about the case is that Casey Anthony mislead people searching for her daughter, and that she has a non-standard grief response if anything.

The Winter Olympics were awarded for the first time to South Korea on Wednesday as the city of Pyeongchang was named as host of the 2018 Games.

Pyeongchang had been a persistent candidate after finishing second to Vancouver in voting for the 2010 Games and to Sochi, Russia, for the 2014 Olympics. It had built its candidacy for 2018 on a proposal to expand winter sports in the lucrative Asian market.

Pyeongchang will be the third Asian city to host the Winter Games, after Sapporo, Japan, in 1968 and Nagano, Japan in 1998. Its budget for 2018 was far more extravagant than the other bids — $1.5 billion for the actual Games and $2 billion to $6 billion for infrastructure projects, according to news reports, as Pyeongchang seeks to become a winter sports hub.

(Yes, I know, perhaps it was overly idealistic to think that to have a leader born from two races that were segregated for hundreds of years in that country/cointinent over there would dispel some of the racial hatred (obviously not all) and make Americans unite across races rather than keep sticking to one) x.x;;

Although I gotta give kudos to the journalist here, so much for objective reporting, lol

Although since each state is practically a country, those in more ethnically diverse and accepted places I guess wouldn't really think much of this, cept it all falls under 'America', you're kinda seen as this one entity (esp if 4th July is anything to go by annually), do you think this kinda activity's gonna be making waves as the next election draws closer?

Good article. Although it was already too obvious here in the US. The election of this president has caused the dormant hatred to raise again, but this time it is more subtle. It comes in the form of extreme right wing politics, biased talking heads in the media, the creation of the tea party and crazy candidates.

Good article. Although it was already too obvious here in the US. The election of this president has caused the dormant hatred to raise again, but this time it is more subtle. It comes in the form of extreme right wing politics, biased talking heads in the media, the creation of the tea party and crazy candidates.

Aye... scratch the surface of a LOT of the opposition and "uppity black folk" slurs start spilling out.However, as Saintess notes in his financial post above... Obama is really just Bush-lite Again. We've had the same corrosive pack of robber-barons in charge since the mid-1980s. They use the latent racism, sex issues, and other stupidities of the peasant "conservatives" (*cough* term hijacked if any of them knew history) to manipulate enough of them to keep signing up for more looting by the plutocracy.

I've really come to the conclusion over the last 12 months that the pretense is about gone.. these thugs are going to break the US and then scamper off to the Caymans and Switzerland if anyone starts shooting... otherwise the US will be in the "Mexico" model (98% poverty, 1% personal-nation families with their own armies).

Aye... scratch the surface of a LOT of the opposition and "uppity black folk" slurs start spilling out.However, as Saintess notes in his financial post above... Obama is really just Bush-lite Again. We've had the same corrosive pack of robber-barons in charge since the mid-1980s. They use the latent racism, sex issues, and other stupidities of the peasant "conservatives" (*cough* term hijacked if any of them knew history) to manipulate enough of them to keep signing up for more looting by the plutocracy.

And corporate media is doing the rest... a modern Bread and circuses. I mean technologically humankind can evolve because it only needs a few brilliant ideas to create new technology for everyone. But for social evolution you need to have everyone complying and contributing to the social development. Unfortunately the basics (for social interaction) did not change much since the roman empire, but the methods were refined to look more humane (most of the advances in social systems these days comes primarily from available technology, not the social system).

Which reminds me of your comparison of modern plutocratism and feudalism. I think the destinction of both (if we subtract technological differences) is marginal at best.

Aye... scratch the surface of a LOT of the opposition and "uppity black folk" slurs start spilling out.However, as Saintess notes in his financial post above... Obama is really just Bush-lite Again. We've had the same corrosive pack of robber-barons in charge since the mid-1980s. They use the latent racism, sex issues, and other stupidities of the peasant "conservatives" (*cough* term hijacked if any of them knew history) to manipulate enough of them to keep signing up for more looting by the plutocracy.

I've really come to the conclusion over the last 12 months that the pretense is about gone.. these thugs are going to break the US and then scamper off to the Caymans and Switzerland if anyone starts shooting... otherwise the US will be in the "Mexico" model (98% poverty, 1% personal-nation families with their own armies).

Considering the sheer number of weapons available to pretty much anyone in the US, I'm more inclined to say the former is more likely than the latter. Unlike Mexico, where it is hideously illegal for a regular citizen to own a gun, almost anyone can drop down to the gun shows here and pick up a mini arsenal.

I suspect you're right about them fleeing, too... I imagine that it will only take a few would-be snipers to send them into full ass-showing flight. Hopefully their departure will also mean a corrosion of their influence, but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect you're right about them fleeing, too... I imagine that it will only take a few would-be snipers to send them into full ass-showing flight. Hopefully their departure will also mean a corrosion of their influence, but I'm not holding my breath.

The problem with them fleeing would be than they wouldn't leave ''empty handed'', they would flee with money than would be really usefull to the US economy.

Is it wrong to me to hope for a succesfull would-be sniper possibility ?